English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If there are no weapons of mass destruction how are our troops dying? If we invaded Iraq for oil, why is gas so expensive and the oil companies profits so high? He gets blamed for Katrina but those idiots chose to stay instead of the MANDATORY EVACUATION. and then they shoot at the people trying to help them. And why does congress not get blamed for anything. The U.S.S. Cole and the first attack on the World Trade Center happened while Clinton was hanging out in Monicas mouth and he did nothing but ruin her dress. Since 9-11 what has happened here?.... Nothing except Bush bashing. See the plot to destroy Sears Tower that was broken? Will any of you idiots give Bush credit? I think not. Do you people realize how stupid you really sound? If Sears Tower was taken down, everyone of you bashers would have blamed Bush and it would sound like this..."If he wasn't so worried about oil in Iraq it wouldn't have happened" FLAKES!! You know what...it didn't happen.

2006-06-23 06:35:27 · 19 answers · asked by peter g 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

19 answers

amen

2006-06-23 06:37:52 · answer #1 · answered by kman 2 · 2 5

One question at a time.

If there are no weapons...?
Improvised explosives, handguns and longarms (that is, rifles, machines guns) aren't WMD. When we went to war, it was because we were told the Iraqi government had nuclear, biological and chemical weapon stockpiles.

If we invaded Iraq for oil...? Hmmm you answered the first part of your question with the second. And if you didn't realize Bush has large stakes in the oil industry, you don't know where he got the money to pay for his share of the Texas Rangers.
He gets blamed for Katrina... No he doesn't. He get's blamed for his characterization of the initial response to Katrina, and not providing adequate funding to the ACOE to maintain the levees surrounding the area. But New Orleans was a ****ed up situation from all ends, and the blame for the results starts with Nagle, and goes straight through Baton Rouge on its way to Washington.
You are correct, in stating that both the attack on the Cole and the bombing of the World Trade Center happened during the Clinton campaign. Of course, the WTC bombing was put together over the 35 days between Clinton's swearing in and the actual attack. Oh, wait; Ramzi Yousef began planning in 91, and entered the country with a fake Iraqi passport in 1992, both during Bush 41.
The attack on the Cole prompted major changes in the way the Navy handles possible threats like small rafts; and they actually *caught and convicted* Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef, the guys responsible for planning and execution of the 93 WTC bombing, and 13 people in Yemen for the Cole bombing. Of course, since we have Osama bin Ladin safely behind bars Bush 43 should get some cred... oh wait, never mind.
And the Sears Tower "plot"? Considering the FBI has described it as "more aspirational than operational", and that the 'organization' was "never able to obtain the explosives or access needed to implement the plan"; I wasn't too worried about the "Seas of David." Especially when DHS has went out of the way to say there has never been any threat to the Sears Tower that has gotten past the stage of discussion. So, you know what? It wasn't going to happen anytime soon.

2006-06-23 07:21:44 · answer #2 · answered by hogan.enterprises 5 · 0 0

Whoa, chill on the caffeine!

If Bush is not responding to idiots, it is because he does not want to stoop to that level. He is doing a fine job, though he has made mistakes. A person would have to not be human to not make mistakes.

The deal about WMD: Sudam had them before and used them on his own people. Intelligence said they were still there. They probably are still there today. There is a LOT of sand in Iraq. They have found entire fleets of planes burried in the sand, I am sure there is plenty of more stuff waiting to be discovered. What happens when the insurgents find the stuff and starts using it? Maybe they are waiting until we leave to uncover it and take control.

New Orleans: Don't get me started on that. What should have been working together to help people turned into massive finger pointing that left the people stranded even longer.

Clinton: Must have been nice to have such a cushy job and only have to call out the big guns when he needed to distract the press.

2006-06-23 06:47:20 · answer #3 · answered by Databit42 4 · 0 0

30 years from now, bush will be looked at as a far superior president. The great ones don't get their due respect until they are gone. He has mishandled the situation in Iraq, but if Gore was president, Saddam woudl be in power, as well as the Taliban and he would have sought an indictment of bin laden rather than going on the offensive and trying to hunt him down. Not to mention Sudan offered bin laden to Clinton 2 times but he declined. After all he had only attacked the USS Cole, WTC and 2 embassies. Let's not forget that this mess with North Korea is all Clintons fault. Look at the treaty he signed with them.

2006-06-23 06:42:57 · answer #4 · answered by Casual Traveler 5 · 0 0

Wow...does this rant even deserve commenting upon?

I just want to clarify that no troops in Iraq are dying because of weapons of mass destruction. Do you understand this war at all? The Bush adminstration's reasoning for invading Iraq was that Hussein had WMDs. We are not fighting against Iraqis. The people killing our troops are terrorists.
Some people contend that Bush has inside ties with oil industry, and therefore wants oil prices to be higher. I don't really subscribe to that theory, but no one thinks that we invaded Iraq to get more oil.
You are taking bits of fact and combining it with nonsense. Try to actually read a newspaper, unlike our president.
Bush doesn't respond to critics because he has nothing to gain by doing so. He is a puppet and he does and says what he is told.

2006-06-23 06:41:21 · answer #5 · answered by Miss D 7 · 0 0

TOO NICE? he's ordering the death of people daily!! wake up!! katrina he was warned about the severity of the storm... that poeple would be without necessities such as food and medicine and did NOTHING. the evacuation came too late. congress gets blamed for is porkbarrelling enough, but it is the leader of the free world to make the stronger stand and listen to the poeple's requests. Bush gets credit secretly through all the poeple who have not turned this country into complete chaos yet, but his wrong doing far exceeds his right-doing. And the media is partly to blame for this as well.

2006-06-23 06:41:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The 'Bush bashers' only point out problems. They never offer practical solutions. Unfortunately, that's the way of politics. The Democrats have not gotten over losing both Congress and the presidency and will stoop to anything to regain power.

2006-06-23 06:41:50 · answer #7 · answered by williegod 6 · 0 0

I agree soooo much!
Bush is awesome and I really don't understand why everyone hates him, he is the best president ever!
okay, well maybe not EVER, but he's awesome!
And people do need to give credit, and if not credit then at least shut their mouths.
And people call him a redneck idiot from texas or whatever, but obviously he's smart and has class if he doesn't fight back to all the bashers.

2006-06-23 06:39:37 · answer #8 · answered by DisneyLover 6 · 0 0

no he doesn't call them idiots, he call them anti-American or unpatriotic. Which in all actuality shows his own anti-American stance in that to protest or question the motivations of you leaders is very American. To quash descent by discrediting and ruining the careers of people who oppose his personal financial agenda is about the most anti-American stance a person can take.

How about the way he violates the first amendment by creating "free speech zones" according to the constitution the entire country is a free speech zone.

Oh and yes it is about oil, disrupting the supply of it to drive prices up so he can make a bundle of cash on the blood of our soldiers.

2006-06-23 07:08:34 · answer #9 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0 0

Do you really think the President should be wasting his time responding to the countless attacks made on him. It's a waste of his time and a waste of taxpayers money. I hate the president as much as anybody else, but if there's anything he's done right, it's not to respond to bashers.

Impeachment procedings should be implemented now.

2006-06-23 06:42:11 · answer #10 · answered by seek_out_truth 4 · 0 0

There will always be people who hate others for any number of reasons. Being in the world's biggest spotlight just means that there are more people to hate him, whether it's legitimate or not.

Be content in knowing though, that it means that there are more people to blindly jump to his defense as well, whether or not it's legitimate.

2006-06-23 06:44:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers